Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Daniel Davis / Deep Dive"
channel.
-
150
-
22
-
8
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
5
-
4
-
4
-
WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history (see the primary source below).
Though te war was not necessarily started with the intent of "regime change" as done with smaller less powerful states in the classical "regime change ops" we usually associate with the post-WW2 era of the Cold War, the situation as it unfolded (1914-18) was exploited in order to impose a "regime change".
"If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler." - Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946
That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it.
That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues.
They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences.
Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality).
So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place.
Here is the timeline of events during 1918:
1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government.
2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, than to topple the current Berlin government.
3) Omit step 1) for the "popular narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then write history that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on the day chosen by the writers of history. In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that? Which popular history doc we "see on TV" ever does that?
From the primary source:
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
3
-
3
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
3
-
The "Western moral superiority"-fans are just crying because they realize that the good ol' days for the American Century, which came about because the rest of the world was basically destroyed for the 40 years after WW2, are coming to an end. In 1945 when everybody else was "down" in power, and "exhausted" (reality), the USA could almost single-handedly employ the DIVIDE-AND-RULE STRATEGY over the rest of the planet to skim off the world's wealth at the expense of 95% of the planet, disguising the desirable hegemony as philanthropy and benevolence.
Around the year 2000 the USA as sole hegemon could have done their best, but they chose to do their worst (PNAC, and so on).
The rest has arisen from those ashes of 400 years of exploitive colonialism, 5 years of worldwide war (1939-45), and more than 40 years of Cold War (1947-90) filled with proxy bloodshed which kept everyone else "down", and which affected every corner of the world...except the USA which could act as financier (distance from the war zones).
Now the good ol' days are over.
----------------------------------------
If you're not in the club of US/collective West "superiority" (sic.), just remember: The USA/collective West have never had any ulterior motives (lol). All they want to ever do, is "save the world from the bad guys" (more lol). It IS just like that, because the WEST says so themselves, so don't argue (super lol).
"In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population ...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
Obviously, simple math means that it left the rest of the world (around 94%) to somehow get along with the rest left over. To have considered that as even remotely fair, regardless of any other circumstances, speaks volumes. Today it is still roughly 30% in the hands of 12% of the global population, as the rest rises. Again, silence on this speaks volumes. How were in the past (Age of European Empires), and are the 1%-ters in the West and their international friends TODAY (global elites/globalists) going to ensure that this desirable and ADMITTED (quote) "inequality" and dollar disparity continues? THAT is the question they are trying to deflect from, with endless cycles of circular reasoning.
Answer: With the divide and rule technique of top-down power, in efforts to split the main BRICS nations and other rising and stable regions of the planet apart.
2
-
2
-
2
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
NATO is a "buck catcher" (Mearsheimer Theory) of the American Century.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) with a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION, and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed.
Whatever...
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)
Short answer: NOT you (personally).
Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the foot of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers.
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace, in times of crises on all tiers of power, and in times of war.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same butt...
Create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection.
Then point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST.
And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power.
In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS.
In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS.
Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relations" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the modus operandi.
Divide and Rule.
The LINK of the WORLD.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
---------------------------------------
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script for the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
@Peacekeeper1989 The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. Today, this has transformed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBERALS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. This branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
@MikeHunt-fo3ow Here is the grandest of all the grand strategies.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure most of the planet's leaders will immediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cops (neolibs) and bad cops (neocon).
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
During the Fist Cold War (1945-1991) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "G-G Line" (Germany to Greece), and had little minions man the parapets of the wall.
During the Second Cold War (1990s-today) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "B-B Line" (Baltics to Black Sea), and are going to set up little minions man the parapets of the wall.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
The "biggest loser" of the systemic conflagrations that were "WW1" and "WW2" was the great divider/grand encircler London/British Empire. Around the year 1900 its lords set out to encircle (by proxy) its biggest contester.
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
@aleksandarbabic766 It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
Trump is a liar.
Every single POTUS since the 1990s could have stopped this war.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe (the exchange between Matlock and Kissinger).
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route, see below)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
THE MARCHING ROUTE OF THE EMPIRE
Summary under the video description of a UCLA video of an interview between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock:
"The 1994 discussion between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock revolved around the contentious issue of NATO expansion and its implications for U.S.-Russia relations and Eastern Europe's stability. The debate was set against the backdrop of Russian opposition, articulated by President Boris Yeltsin, who warned that expanding NATO could lead to a "cold peace" and further isolate Russia. Kissinger supported NATO expansion as a necessary step to ensure the security and sovereignty of Central European countries like Poland and Hungary. He argued that delaying expansion could create a geopolitical vacuum, leaving these nations vulnerable to influence from both Germany and Russia. Kissinger viewed NATO as a stabilizing force and an "insurance policy" against future uncertainties, emphasizing that such moves need not antagonize Russia if managed through diplomatic and military assurances. Matlock, however, cautioned against hasty expansion, noting that Russia's current weakness did not pose an immediate military threat. He believed that NATO expansion might inflame nationalist sentiments within Russia, complicating its internal politics and its path toward democracy. Instead, he argued for prioritizing economic integration of Eastern European nations into the European Union and maintaining diplomacy to address Russian concerns. The conversation highlighted differing perspectives on balancing security, diplomacy, and the risks of escalating tensions in post-Cold War Europe."
Arguing "two sides of the same fence", which was systemic expansion into Eastern Europe, using Russia's weakness after the fall of the USSR. The good cop arguing for the slow-paced systemic expansion to avoid creating discomfort in another system, whilst the bad cop was arguing for a "rapid expansion to avoid another power filling a power vacuum".
It is indeed easy to overlook the fact that both were arguing for the same thing though, which was "systemic expansion" in a new territory.
The marching route of the empire.
Trump is just another imperialist empire fanboy catering to imperialist/militarists back home.
Misguided fools, all of them.
1
-
Why all the sick non-binding "promises" to the Ukraine.
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
The first country to find out how dangerous it was to become America's "friends", was Great Britain.
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey.
1
-
1
-
The REAL aim is China.
Russia, eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
The "three frontlines" mentioned in grand strategy, to encroach and encircle a rival power, is history rhyming after 1900 and after 2000.
Around the year 1900, the "three frontlines" in times of peace were:
- eastern frontline (Russia, with France 1891-1894)
- western frontline (France, with Russia or the "2-front war danger" for the multi-lingual/multi-ethnic "encircled", 1891 - 1894)
- the North Sea and global oceans (1907, as the British Empire aligned with the encirclers)
USA: on the "fence", just "eating popcorn"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
------------------------------------------
Footnote
With Europe set up against Russia, the USA will pivot to Asia to instigate trouble here (already the strategy since Obama).
We are supposed to admire them, but they never give anything of geopolitical/grand strategy value back. Ever. Ratchet principle.
1
-
1
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what they tell us in our history books: "Versailles was justice for Brest-Litovsk."
I bet you that you, the reader, has heard some or other version of history as this being "the truth"...
You have heard and processed this, and stored it in your compartmentalized brain as "just how it is".
It's the "got what they deserved"-tier of reasoning.
It is in the same compartment of the brain, where the "good vs. the bad"-story is stored.
The filter by which all is judged in your own mind...
The comparison has been made so often, that 99% of the history fans can't even recognize that it is a false equivalence (geopolitics/grand strategy).
Here what they don't tell you:
That WW1 was a European showdown war (geopolitics) just like the Napoleonic Wars were a European showdown war, and therefore WW1 should have politically ended the same way the Napoleonic Wars ended. With a concert of powers, which included the "losers" as equals.
Since WW1 was a global war, and included the USA fighting in Europe, it should have logically ended with a treaty system which represented a GLOBAL balance of power. With a balance of power arrangement amongst equals which did not disadvantage any power, incl. the "losers." That is what the Concert of Europe aimed for at the end of the Napoleonic Wars: France (the loser) was invited, and not disadvantaged. In fact it left the war with a strategic advantage: The previous Central European powerhouse (not centred in Paris), the Holy Roman Empire was kept disunited, as carried out by Napoleon (geopolitically dislocated). This Holy Roman Empire of the German people, with various changing capital cities throughout the ages (Rome, Aachen, Vienna, Frankfort, Prague and Regensburg, etc.) was NOT resurrected by concert, which of course meant that the balance of power principle did not disadvantage France.
A different era, which resulted in 100 years of relative European peace, as long as all powers stuck to the consent of "balancing power" as THE main objective.
Here is what they did at Versailles.
The winners implemented a global IMBALANCE of power per dictate, which would advantage the OWN side, that of the off-continental powers, with their junior partner France in tow.
Once you fall for the logic of the unprincipled, you will become the eternal fool. They want YOU to fight, for the IMBALANCE of power.
Then, from a position of power, rule by division.
Yes, because that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
Keep the continent of Europe in a state of disruption.
Create an imbalance of powers, which benefit the own systems.
Those who wished to RULE THE WORLD, intend to create an imbalance of power, for own gain.
Brest-Litovsk = global balance of power per decree (without asking those affected, since monarchic principle)
Treaty of Versailles = global imbalance of power per decree (without asking those affected, since imperialist principle).
Treaty of Versailles.
Divide and rule/conquer.
The people of Europe were "divided" with a ruling by outside powers (off-continental states).
1